Invited talk for
symposium, organized by John Bloom, on³Models for Creation: Intelligent Design and Evolution²

American Scientific
Affiliation – Annual Conference

August 5-8,
2005;Messiah College, Grantham,
PA

full text:http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/IsIDScientific_ASA2005.doc

Abstract:

A central activity of science is
construction and testing of empirical models, utilizing known natural
mechanisms, of parts of the natural world.Occasionally, some scientists tentatively conclude that some
particular phenomenon is unexplainable in terms of any known natural
mechanisms.I will discuss some historical examples which have been resolved
(e.g. the energy source of the
sun) and some modern examples still under discussion (e.g. the Big Bang, first life) where at least some
scientists have concluded that a phenomenon is unexplainable in terms of known
natural mechanisms.In such circumstances,
individual scientists have advocated a range of scientific and philosophical
conclusions (e.g. unknown natural
mechanisms, multiple universes, divine intervention).The modern Intelligent Design (ID) movement can be
understood as one particular instance of this.Some activities of ID are clearly ³scientific,² even under
narrow definitions of that term, including: modeling of evolutionary population
dynamics, investigating the adequacy of known evolutionary mechanisms to
account for specific instances of biological complexity, and investigating the general
conditions under which self-organized complexity is possible.Other activities of ID clearly go
beyond science into philosophy and theology; however, this fact does not render
the scientific activities of ID any less scientific.Rather than debating the demarcation of science, the real
questions we should be asking are: Are the scientific arguments of ID good
science?Are the philosophical
arguments of ID good philosophy?Are the theological arguments of ID good theology?

A.The
majority of modern arguments for Intelligent Design (ID) fall into one of these
categories:

(A1) That biological complexity (the development of first life, plus some subsequent
increases in complexity during biological history) cannot be explained via
natural evolutionary mechanisms alone.Some attempts are made to formalize this claim via probability
arguments.(Controversial.)

(A2) That the fundamental laws of nature appear to be finely
tuned for life.This argument is often left as an
intuitive appeal without formal probability calculations.(Fairly uncontroversial among theists.)

B.A
broad picture of science includes:

(B1) The basis for science:Can we
discover new truths about nature? If so, how and why are we able to do so?

(B2) The processes of science:What are
effective scientific methods for learning about nature?

(B3) The discoveries of science: What do we learn about nature when we apply these
methods?

(B4) The inferences of science:Do
scientific discoveries have implications for society, philosophy, religion?

(B5) The human aspect of science:What are
our motives, ethics, and goals for doing science?

C.A
narrower picture of science
restricts itself to questions B2 and B3, and it acknowledges the
critical role in science of constructing and testing explanatory models which only
refer to natural causes.(This is
not to claim that science must ever-and-always restrict itself to ³naturalistic²
models, it only notes that such models play a critical role in scientific
progress.Advocates of ID also construct
and test such models as one step in their arguments.)

D.There are varying degrees of success in
building models for natural events.Events could be:

(D1) Explainable.Good empirical
models predict that known natural mechanisms can explain the event.

(D2) Partially explainable.Our
empirical models are not sufficiently thorough to explain the event
entirely.However, based on what
we know so far, we believe that known natural mechanisms are sufficient to
account for the event.We believe
that future advances will allow us to explain the event fully.

(D3) Unexplainable.No known
natural mechanisms can explain this event.In fact, there are good empirical reasons for ruling out any
model which relies only on known natural mechanisms. (eg. source of the Big Bang)

E.Individual scientists often reach differing
conclusions about the cause of a scientifically ³unexplainable² event:

(E1) A currently unknown natural law is responsible for the event.

(E2) A supernatural event occurred.(Caused by an intelligent being of a different reality than our
universe.)

(E3) Super-human technology brought about the event.(Caused by intelligent beings who are contained in and
limited by our universe (or a parallel one very much like it), but with superior
technology.)

(E4) A very improbable event simply happened.

(E5) There are manyuniverses,
and we just happen to live in one where this improbable event happened.

For
details, see Chapter 5 ofPerspectives
on an Evolving Creation, K.B. Miller,
ed.

F1.Some
arguments used by Intelligent Design advocates are definitely scientific, even
under the narrow definition of science above.Examples include: modeling of evolutionary population
dynamics, investigating the adequacy of known evolutionary mechanisms to
account for specific instances of biological complexity, and investigating the
general conditions under which self-organized complexity is possible.

F2.When
arguing that some phenomenon belongs in category D3, itıs important to be as
thorough as possible in accounting for known natural processes.For example, a simplistic model of
evolution looks like this: the only mutations are point mutations; each gene
produces a single protein; each protein has a single function; the only way to fix
a mutation in a population is through natural selection.A more thorough accounting of natural
mechanisms includes: reproductive isolation, founder effects, neutral drift, sexual
selection, environment-dependent gene expression, gene duplication, horizontal gene
transfer, allopolyploidy, endosymbiont capture, differential RNA editing,
ambiguous tRNA sequences, multiple proteins encoded by the same gene, multiple
functions for a single protein, and others.(See also Chapter 13 ofPerspectives on an Evolving Creation, K.B. Miller, ed.)Failure to be thorough in accounting for known mechanisms is
an easy way to construct flawed scientific arguments.

F3.Given
how much we have yet to learn, two types of (restrained) scientific conclusions
seem accessible to advocates of ID. [1] Based on specific models with well-defined assumptions,
we can rule out certain groups of natural mechanisms as being adequate by
themselves to account for first life or specific examples of biological
complexity.Any evolutionary accounts
will need to use additional natural mechanisms. (e.g. ³Simulating evolution by gene duplication....² Behe &
Snoke, Protein Sci.2004; 13:2651.)[2] ³It seems to me² (that is, it is my scientific
intuition) that once all natural mechanisms are accounted for in detail, weıll
be able to show that first life, or certain types of biological complexity (e.g. bacteria flagella), are unexplainable in terms of
known natural mechanisms.

Given how much we
have yet to learn, two types of (restrained) scientific conclusions seem
accessible to advocates of evolution. [1] Using known natural mechanisms (e.g. gene duplication), we can construct plausible models
for certain specific examples of biological complexity (e.g. certain ion channels).[2] ³It seems to me² (that is, it is my scientific
intuition) that once all natural mechanisms are accounted for in detail, weıll
be able to show that first life and all types of biological complexity can
be explained in terms of known natural mechanisms.

(G1) When we see an event which had a very low
probability of happening and for
which there could plausibly be a beneficiary, we generally conclude the event
was planned and executed by an intelligent agent.

(G2) Taking into account various philosophical,
historical, and religious arguments, the most likely explanation for the
fine-tuning of natural laws is that they were supernaturally planned.

(G3) If we can show that first life / biological
complexity is unexplainable (highly improbable) in terms of known natural
mechanisms, we will have proven that it was brought about by an intelligent
agent.

(G4) If we can show that first life / biological
complexity is unexplainable (highly improbable) in terms of known natural
mechanisms, then if we also take into account various philosophical,
historical, and religious arguments, the most likely explanation is that it was
brought about by supernatural action.

(G5) ³Intelligent Design² is a very good term to
associate (equate?) with the idea that biological complexity is unexplainable
in terms of natural evolutionary mechanisms.

These are all worthy of being
debated.I believe that some are
strong arguments, and some are flawed.

Some ID advocates would like to classify G3
under ³science² rather than ³philosophy.²G3 falls under science-defined-broadly, but it falls outside of
science-defined-narrowly as most people understand it today.Demarcation lines between science and
philosophy have occasionally shifted in the past.If biological complexity defies evolutionary
explanation and if ID becomes a useful rubric for guiding empirical
studies, then the demarcation of science will evolve to encompass ID.My advice is: be patient.If someone says that G3 is ³not
science,² reply, ³OK, call it philosophy if you want, but regardless of how you
classify it, is the argument itself sound or unsound?²

Regarding G5: consider that the laws of nature
are fine-tuned not only for the existence of, but also for the self-assembly of
atoms, molecules, stars, and planets with oceans and atmospheres.This is considered evidence for
design.If the laws of nature are
also fine-tuned not only for the existence of, but also for the self-assembly
of life and biological complexity, should this be considered evidence for, or
against, design? Most ID-advocates essentially argue that if life and complexity
can self-organize, then that should be counted as evidence against
design.

H.Some
arguments for ID are religious.Examples (paraphrased) would include:

(H5) It is reasonable to believe that God might have used (scientifically unexplainable) supernatural
events to create first life and biological complexity.

(H6) Good theology & hermeneutics should convince
us that ID is more likely to be true
than theistic evolution.

--These are all
worthy of being debated.I believe
that some are seriously flawed while others have merits.I disagree with H6 but recommend it as
a useful starting point for a friendly, spirited debate among Christian
scholars.

I1.To
advocates of ID, I recommend:Donıt pretend that ID can be evaluated
purely as science without consideration of religious implications; you arenıt fooling
anyone.Donıt try to be coy and
say, ³I donıt know² or ³it doesnıt matter² when someone asks, ³Who is the
designer?²Instead answer, ³That
is a philosophical and religious question and Iıll be happy to give you my
opinion and the reason for my beliefs; however, can we also debate the
scientific questions as well?²Instead of arguing that all of ID belongs under the definition of
³science,² embrace the distinctions among the scientific, philosophical, and
religious portions of your arguments – as a way of making your critics
more at ease – and ask that each portion be discussed in turn on its
merits.

I2.To
opponents of ID, I recommend: Donıt play the demarcation game, that
is, donıt insist on definitions of science which try to exclude ID.Donıt insist that ID must posit a
specific mechanism in order to be ³scientific.² It is valid sometimes to test the validity of one
scientific model without proposing an alternative, or to argue that an event
belongs in category D3.Donıt try to trap ID-advocates by
asking, ³Who is the designer;² this is simply a way of shifting the debate from
one level to another.Instead:
evaluate the scientific parts of ID on their scientific merits; evaluate the
philosophical parts of ID on their merits; and evaluate the theological parts
of ID on their merits.

The majority of modern arguments for Intelligent Design fall
into one of two categories:

First: That biological
complexity (that is,
the development of first life, plus some subsequent increases in complexity
during biological history) cannot be explained via natural evolutionary
mechanisms alone, and is best explained in terms of the actions of some
intelligent agent.Sometimes, attempts
are made to formalize this claim via probability arguments.

The second common
argument for ID is that the fundamental laws of nature appear to be finely
tuned for life.This argument is typically left as an
intuitive appeal, without attempting any formal probability calculations.

I
have been asked to speak on whether or not arguments like these should be
considered ³scientific.²The
answer, obviously, is: both Yes
and No.

But
seriously, I have found that the least productive arguments over ID have been
the arguments over whether or not Intelligent Design is ³scientific.² These arguments have been so
unproductive, I believe, because Intelligent Design, as a whole package, is
partly scientific, partly philosophical, and, yes, partly religious.So rather than debating whether or not
ID as a whole should be entirely included in, or entirely excluded from,
science, the real questions we should be asking are: Are the scientific parts
of ID good science?Are the
philosophical parts of ID good philosophy?And are the theological part of ID good theology?

Iıll
talk about the philosophical and religious parts of ID towards the end of my
talk, but letıs start with the science.I think itıs useful to have a broad picture of science which includes at
least all of the questions I list under point ³B² on your handout.

B.A
broad picture of science includes:

(B1) The basis for science:Can we
discover new truths about nature? If so, how and why are we able to do so?

(B2) The processes of science:What are
effective scientific methods for learning about nature?

(B3) The discoveries of science: What do we learn about nature when we apply these
methods?

(B4) The inferences of science:Do
scientific discoveries have implications for society, philosophy, religion?

(B5) The human aspect of science:What are
our motives, ethics, and goals for doing science?

Questions
B2 and B3 – which ask, ³What are effective scientific methods for learning
about nature,² and ³What do we learn about nature when we apply those methods²
– these questions typically are answered by scientists with little or no
input from philosophy or religion or other academic disciplines.And that is probably the way it should
be.But the other questions I
list, about the basis for science, the societal impact of science, and our
motives and ethics and goals for science – those questions are properly
asked by scientists in conjunction with other disciplines, including philosophy
and religion.

Imagine
telling an historian that the discipline of history should devote itself
exclusively to discovering raw facts about the past – what events happened,
where, and when – but all questions about the psychological, social,
philosophical, and religious implications of historical events, those questions
belong outside the discipline of history, and should be excluded from professional
historical scholarship.If you said
that to any historian, I imagine that the historian would laugh you to
derision.History overlaps with
other disciplines, and it is appropriate for historians to speak on these areas
of overlap.

In
the same way, scientists who feel motivated and competent to do so should not
be shy about addressing questions where science overlaps with sociology,
philosophy, and religion.

However.

Although
a broad definition of science can be useful, itıs also useful to
acknowledge that there is a narrower definition of science, which is what most
people today think of when they hear the word ³science,² which restricts itself
to questions B2 and B3, and which acknowledges the critical role in
science of constructing and testing explanatory models which only refer to
natural causes.If we look at the
history of science, we see that science really began to make progress when we
stopped thinking about natural events in terms of ³nature spirits² or in terms Aristotelian
³final causes,² and started trying to explain events in nature exclusively in
terms of immediate, natural causes.Historically, this has been critical for the advance of science.Now, it might sound like Iım trying to
exclude Intelligent Design from science with this narrower definition.But please note that I do not
say that science must ever and always restrict itself to naturalistic
explanations.I am only saying
that models which restrict themselves to natural causes play a critical role
in science.Advocates of ID should
agree, because they themselves routinely construct models which restrict
themselves to natural causes ... as a step towards trying to show that such
models are inadequate.

So,
what happens when scientists confront a puzzling event in nature, and try to
explain that event using models which only rely on known natural
mechanisms?Well, these models are
tested, and can meet varying levels of success, which I list under point D in
your handout.

(D1) Explainable.Good empirical
models predict that known natural mechanisms can explain the event.

(D2) Partially explainable.Our
empirical models are not sufficiently thorough to explain the event
entirely.However, based upon what
we know so far, we believe that known natural mechanisms are sufficient to
account for the event.We believe
that future advances will allow us to explain the event fully.

(D3) Unexplainable.No known
natural mechanisms can explain this event.In fact, there are good, empirical reasons for ruling out
any model which relies only on known natural mechanisms.

Many
things in science are now in category D1 – explainable in terms of known
natural laws.For example: the
regular orbital motion of planets, the fuel source for the sun, how cold fronts
cause rainfall, and so forth.Perhaps the majority of things in science fall into category D2: partially
explainable.How did the first
galaxies form?How can a tree grow
from a single seed into a mature plant?How does a bird learn when and where to migrate?We know some of the mechanisms in these
processes.But we know that we donıt
know other mechanisms.We expect
that future research will turn up some interesting facts, concepts, and surprises.However, although we can only partially
explain these things right now, it looks to us like known natural mechanisms
will do the job.We donıt
expect that further research into these questions will turn up anything which
just canıt be explained in terms of known natural processes.

Scientists
spend most of their time trying to move things from category ³partially
explainable² to the category ³fully explainable.²Scientists make models, trying to explain those events in
terms of understandable natural processes.Scientists test their models experimentally and
theoretically, and usually they find that their models donıt match the
data.Very occasionally, when
there are strong theoretical and experimental reasons, this leads scientists to
hypothesize new natural laws which are consistent with known natural laws.But most of the time, scientists who
confront a failed scientific model go back to work and make better models using
just known natural mechanisms.This is how we make progress in science, most of the time.

But
there are those rare occasions in science when an event seems to fall into
category D3: unexplainable.Not
only are we currently unable to construct a model of the event in terms of
known natural laws, but we can even come up with good quantitative arguments
why any model which relies only on known natural laws would seem
to be excluded.An historical
example of this is the period in the late 1800ıs when the energy source of the
sun was a mystery.At that time, there
was good evidence that the earth, and therefore the sun, was at least hundreds
of millions of years old.But the
known energy sources of chemical burning and gravitational collapse could be
shown to be inadequate to fuel the sun for that long a period.The energy source of the sun was
unexplainable in terms of natural mechanisms known at that time.The solution to this puzzle was the
discovery of an entirely new natural process – nuclear fusion.

Today, the source of the Big Bang
falls into the category D3: unexplainable in terms of known natural laws.Now, scientists can and do hypothesize new
natural laws, acting in some primordial vacuum or mother universe, which might
cause a Big Bang.This is an
ongoing area of research.However,
there are no currently known natural laws, for which we have independent
evidence, which could explain the source of the Big Bang.

What do scientists do when
confronting an ³unexplainable² event?Individual scientists could reach one of many different conclusions
about the cause of a scientifically unexplained event.I list five on the handout under point
E: unknown natural law,
supernatural event, super-human event, improbable event, or improbable event in
one of many universes.

(E1) An as-yet unknown natural law is responsible for the event.

(E2) A supernatural event occurred.(The event was caused by an intelligent being of an entirely different
reality than our universe.)

(E3) Super-human technology brought about the event.(The event was caused by intelligent beings who are
contained in and limited by our universe, but with superior technology.)

(E4) A very improbable event simply happened.

(E5) There are manyuniverses,
and we just happen to live in one where this improbable event happened.

Again,
consider the source of the Big Bang, combined with the apparent fine-tuning of
fundamental laws of nature, which are currently unexplainable in terms of known
natural laws.A search through
popular books and articles written by scientists will turn up examples of each
of these five types of conclusions listed under point E.

Although
these five conclusions are very different from each other philosophically and
religiously, empirical science alone distinguish among the five.When someone selects one of these five
options as being the most likely one, that selection goes beyond the narrow
definition of science, and is based in part upon philosophical, historical and
religious considerations.

We
could examine several other historical and modern scientific puzzles which at
least some scientists claimed where scientifically ³unexplainable.²But to save time, letıs skip over those
and focus on the puzzles of most interest to Intelligent Design.These puzzles are: the formation of first life on earth, and
some subsequent increases in complexity during biological history.The majority of scientists, myself
included, believe that development of first life and of biological complexity
belong in category D2 – partially explainable.There are many steps – perhaps some very important
steps – which we do not understand in detail because the problem is so
difficult; but we expect that the development of life and biological complexity
ultimately will be explainable in terms of natural mechanisms.However, there are some people who
think that the formation of first life, in particular, belongs in category D3:
unexplainable in terms of known natural laws.And again, a survey of popular literature shows all of E1
through E5 have been proposed to explain the formation of first life on earth.

So
now we have a situation where some people believe that biological complexity
should be considered ³partially explainable,² and some believe that it should
be considered ³unexplainable.² How
do we make progress?Well, we make
progress the way we always do in science: by trying to construct models for the
phenomenon which rely only on known natural mechanisms.We then test those models,
theoretically and experimentally.Advocates of evolution try to show that biological complexity belongs in
category D2, partially explainable, by arguing that the best naturalistic
models for the evolution of complexity, while of course incomplete, are
compatible with the known data and suggestive of how to make progress.Advocates of ID try to show that
biological complexity belongs in category D3, unexplainable, by arguing that
the best naturalistic models for the evolution of complexity are incompatible
with the known data.All
scientists on both sides are doing just what they are supposed to do: coming up
with competing models, testing them, seeing which ones work and which ones donıt.

So
hereıs my first answer to the title of this talk:Advocates of Intelligent Design aredoing science when they try to show that some
phenomenon belongs in the category of ³unexplainable,² that is, when they attempt
to show that conventional evolutionary models, which rely only on known natural
mechanisms, do not match the data in some respects.When they do this, they are definitely doing science, even
under a narrow definition of science.Their arguments might be good, solid scientific arguments, or they might
be poorly done, flawed scientific arguments, but they are science.

Whenever
someone, like advocates of ID, makes the argument that something is ³unexplainable
in terms of known natural mechanisms,² they face the special challenge of being
as thorough as possible in accounting for known natural mechanisms.Failure to be thorough is one of the
easiest ways to make flawed scientific arguments.Let me give you some simplified examples.

We
could imagine a warm pond of water with various simple molecules dissolved in
it in various concentrations, and then calculate the probability that the right
molecules will just randomly collide together, all at once, to spontaneously
form a living cell.The
probability of that happening is extremely low.Now, if we were to conclude on the basis of this calculation
that first life on earth probably didnıt form via that mechanism, that
would be a solid scientific conclusion.But if one were to conclude on the basis of this model that first life
on earth probably didnıt form via any natural mechanisms, that would be
a flawed scientific conclusion.Scientists
who are researching the origin of life long ago rejected the idea that the
first cell was formed via a single, random collision of millions of molecules.Scientists today have other
natural mechanisms in mind for the origin of first life, and if you are going
to attempt a meaningful probability calculation, those other mechanisms need to
be studied and taken into account.

Another
illustrative example:Suppose one
is trying to make an argument about biological complexity based on the concept
of ³information.²It turns out
that the idea of ³information² has been defined in a number of different ways,
in different contexts.You need to
be careful how you define and use the term.One definition of information has to do with how many bits
of information are required to describe an environment.A simple environment requires only a
few bits of information to specify, while a complex environment requires many
bits.Now, under the right
conditions, a combination of deterministic laws plus random processes can
change a simple environment into a complicated environment.So under one definition of
information, it really is possible to produce new information, de novo, via a combination deterministic and random
processes.This can be simulated
on computers, and it happens all the time in the real world in various physical
processes.A second definition of
information refers not to the environment as a whole, but to how many bits of
information are required to specify an object within an environment.Now it is possible, under the right
circumstances, to have simple components self-organize into a more complex
object via a combination of deterministic and random processes.But under this second definition
of information, it can be argued that the deterministic and random processes
are not producing new information, but rather, the information required
for self-organization is already contained in the fine-tuning of the
deterministic and random processes themselves.Yet a third definition of information refers not to
the total information required to describe an object, but only to the genomic
information in a self-replicating object like a biological cell.It measures how much genomic
information the self-replicator requires to survive and reproduce in a
particular environment.Again,
there are circumstances under which the genomic information in a
self-replicator can increase through processes of mutation and natural
selection.But in this case, itıs
probably fair to say that the increased genomic information was not created de
novo, but transferred from the complicated
environment into the self-replicator.So we see from these examples that if a researcher wants to have sound
scientific conclusions about information, when it increases and when it does
not, she will need to be careful in how she defines and uses critical terms
such as ³information.²

One
more illustrative example:The
simplest version of biological evolution – and this is how evolution is
often presented in the popular literature – looks something like this:
each gene only produces a single protein; each protein only has a single
function in the cell; the only kinds of mutations are point mutations; and the
only way in which a mutation can be fixed in a population is through natural
selection.Now, we can build a
mathematical model of evolution using just that limited set of natural
mechanisms, and we can calculate that, under those conditions, the evolution of
certain kinds of biological complexity – the kind which Michael Behe
called irreducible complexity – is extremely improbable.On the basis of this model, a solid
scientific conclusion would be that biological complexity probably didnıt
evolve via that limited set of mechanisms.A flawed scientific conclusion would be to claim, on the
basis of the model I just described, that this model proves that biological
complexity cannot evolve at all.We know that biological evolution is a lot more complicated than the
simplified model which I just presented.A more thorough model of evolution would include an accounting of all
the natural mechanisms I list under point F2 in your handout, plus others mechanisms
I havenıt listed.

Biology
is complicated.There are lots of
natural mechanisms to consider, and we donıt fully understand many of
them.Given how much we have yet
to learn about the mechanisms of evolution, it seems to me that two limited
types of scientific conclusions are accessible to advocates of ID.The first type would be:³On the basis of specific models with
well-defined assumptions, we can rule out certain limited sets of natural
mechanisms as being adequate, by themselves, to account for first life or to
account for specific examples of biological complexity.Any evolutionary account will need to
make use of additional natural mechanisms that arenıt included in our initial
models.²On your handout, I give a
recently published example where I think the authors did a good job of
specifying their models and their assumptions at the outset of the paper, and
reached just that sort of limited conclusion.There is a second type of scientific conclusion which I
think is defensible.An advocate
of ID could say, ³It seems to me (that is, it is my scientific intuition) that
once all natural mechanisms are accounted for in detail, we will be able
to show that first life and certain types of biological complexity (e.g. bacteria flagella) truly are unexplainable in terms
of all known natural mechanisms.We canıt prove it for sure right now, but I believe that is where the
data is pointing.²

These are conservative claims, but
given our current state of knowledge, it seems unwise for advocates of ID to
claim that current scientific evidence warrants anything stronger.But please note, advocates of evolution
should make similar sorts of restrained conclusions.One type of conclusion which an advocate of evolution could
reach is:³Using known natural
mechanisms, we can construct plausible models for certain specific
examples of biological complexity.²If I had time, I would give you an example from neuroscience.Certain types of ion channels display biochemical
interlocking complexity, and we can construct a fairly plausible model for
their evolution via gene duplication.But if you want a more details, youıll have to ask me after this
talk.This isnıt a claim that we
currently can explain all biological complexity, only that we can
currently explain certain specific instances of biological complexity.There is a second type of restrained
conclusion which an advocate of evolution could make:³It seems to me (that is, it is my scientific intuition)
that once all natural mechanisms are accounted for in detail, we will be able
to show that first life and all types of biological complexity can
be explained in terms of known natural mechanisms.We canıt prove it for sure right now, but I believe that is
where the data is pointing.²

If
advocates of ID and advocates of evolution could limit themselves to these
sorts of restrained statements, when they make public pronouncements to general
audiences, I think we could avoid a lot of the emotional heat which sometimes
accompanies these debates.

In
my remaining time, Iıll talk briefly about philosophical and religious aspects
of Intelligent Design.On my
handout under point G, Iıve listed a variety of arguments, paraphrased from the
writings of advocates of ID, which go beyond narrowly defined science and
overlap into philosophy.

(G1) When we see an event which had a very low
probability of happening and for
which there could plausibly be a beneficiary, we generally conclude the event
was planned and executed by an intelligent agent.

(G2) Taking into account various philosophical,
historical, and religious arguments, the most likely explanation for the
fine-tuning of natural laws is that they were supernaturally planned.

(G3) If we can show that first life / biological
complexity is unexplainable (highly improbable) in terms of known natural
mechanisms, we will have proven that it was brought about by an intelligent
agent.

(G4) If we can show that first life / biological
complexity is unexplainable (highly improbable) in terms of known natural
mechanisms, then if we also take into account various philosophical,
historical, and religious arguments, the most likely explanation is that it was
brought about by a supernatural agent.

(G5) ³Intelligent Design² is a very good term to
associate (equate?) with the idea that biological complexity is unexplainable
in terms of natural evolutionary mechanisms.

I think some of those arguments are
good.For example, I think G1 is
generally true and – while not a rigorous proof – I think it adds
weight to ID arguments.Similarly,
I agree with statement G2, which says that supernatural planning seems to be
the strongest explanation for the fine-tuning of natural laws.The two main contenders for explaining
the fine-tuning of the laws of nature are supernatural-creation and many-universes.But I donıt think that many-universes
really ³solves the problem² of fine tuning.If there is some sort of mother universe which has a physical
process that spawns off lots of baby universes, of which our universe is just
one, then it seems to me – just speculating here – that the laws of
nature probably would need to be finely tuned in that mother
universe.But of course the main
reason that I think the laws of nature were created by God is that I believe
Christianity is true.As I noted
before, when you have a scientifically unexplainable event and are trying to
decide which option, among E1 through E5, you think is most likely to be true, it
is appropriate, and even inevitable, that your worldview beliefs play a role
your selection.Therefore, I think
that all of the historical and experiential and philosophical arguments which
can be given in favor of theism in general, and Christianity in particular, add
weight to the idea that the laws of nature were supernaturally planned.To put it more simply, because I
believe in the God of the Bible, I am also inclined to believe that the best
over-all explanation for our scientific observation of the fine-tuning of
natural laws is that those fundamental laws of nature were designed by God.

I
do disagree, however, with argument G3 the way it is phrased, since it
makes a strong claim about proving the activity of an intelligent agent.Iıve already noted that events which
are scientifically unexplainable allow for multiple explanations, not just intelligent
agent activity.The claim that
scientifically improbable complexity must be due to intelligent agent
action is, I think, particularly vulnerable to a version of the many-universes
argument which notes that we now have some pretty good evidence that the actual
universe started by our Big Bang, a universe which contains atoms and stars and
galaxies all obeying the same laws of nature as our own universe, is probably much
bigger than our visible universe.

However,
if you rephrase G3 to something like statement G4, then I would be inclined to
agree with it.Theologically, I
believe that it is possible that God chose to design the laws of nature
in such a way that certain kinds of biological complexity could not evolve, and
then acted at certain points during biological history to overcome those
limitations and assembled those complexities.So if biological complexity is ultimately shown to be
unexplainable in terms of known natural laws, then because I believe in the God
of the Bible, I would be inclined to attribute biological complexity to Godıs miraculous
activity.

I understand that some advocates of
ID would like to have argument G3 classified under the rubric of ³science²
rather than ³philosophy.²While I
agree that G3 falls under science-defined-broadly, it is still the case
that arguments like G3 fall outside of science-defined-narrowly, as most
people understand the term ³science² today.You should take comfort in the fact that the demarcation
lines between science and philosophy have shifted from time to time throughout
the history of science.If
biological complexity defies evolutionary explanation and if ID become a
useful rubric for guiding empirical studies of biology – in other words,
if lots of scientists start to find ID useful for doing their science –
then the demarcation lines around science will evolve to encompass ID.But in the mean time, my advice
is to be patient.Be content for
now to have arguments like G3 discussed under the heading ³philosophy² rather
than ³science,² if thatıs what it takes to get your opponents to discuss the
issue at all.

Of
the various philosophical arguments around ID, some of my biggest concerns are
with statements like G5, which is the close association – indeed, the
near equation – of the word ³design² with the idea that biological
complexity could not evolve.I can
illustrate my concern most simply with this bag of watch parts.Actually, in the interest of
truth-in-advertising, I should tell you that this isnıt really a bag of watch
parts, but a bag of little screws and wires and bits and pieces I picked up
around the lab.But imagine please
that I have disassembled a watch and put all the parts in this plastic
bag.Now, I could shake this bag
24 hours a day for years and years, and the watch would never reassemble itself.But now, imagine, that I have another
bag with the parts of a watch that is designed to self-assemble.When I shake this bag, a little spring
hooks onto a little screw and latches into place.The battery snaps into the battery holder and stays there.All the pieces of the watch are
constructed so that, when two pieces that belong together collide with the
right sort of trajectory, they hook together and stay hooked together.So if you shake this bag for an
hour or so, in the end, youıll have an entire working watch – working,
but with some tiny scratches here and there which indicate its history of being
shaken together.Now I present you
with the ordinary watch, and with the watch which can self-assemble, and I ask
this question: which watch is more cleverly designed?I know how most people would answer.My point here is not to try to
prove that God creating life-forms through evolution is somehow ³better² that
God creating life-forms through miracles.My point, rather, is that self-assembly is not the opposite of
³design.²Watches and biological
life-forms can, in principle, be designed to self-assemble from simpler
component pieces.

This
brings up a potential conflict between the fine-tuning argument for ID and the
biological complexity argument for ID.The laws of nature are finely tuned not only for the existence of
atoms and stars and planets.The
laws of nature are so finely tuned that atoms and stars and galaxies
self-assemble out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big Bang.And after nucleosynthesis in first-generation
stars, the laws of nature bring about the self-assembly of heavier elements
like carbon and oxygen, and simple molecules, and planets with dry land,
atmospheres, and water oceans.This
self-assembly of all the physical forms of the universe is possible because
of the fine-tuning of the laws of nature.I believe this a powerful intuitive argument in favor of the fundamental
laws of nature being designed.But
suppose the fine-tuning doesnıt stop there.Suppose the laws of nature are fine-tuned not only for the
self-assembly of molecules and stars and planets, but also for the self-assembly
of biological life and biological complexity.If the laws of nature are so exquisitely fine-tuned that
life and complexity can self-assemble, should that be considered evidence for
design, or evidence against design?It seems to me that it should be considered as evidence for
design.But that is not how
it is presented by most advocates of ID.Most advocates of ID essentially argue that if biological life and biological
complexity can self-organize, then that should be counted as evidence against
design.

The
way that ID is typically presented, by advocates of ID, is that there is a
choice: either evolution is true, or things were intelligently
designed.Evolution or design, one
or the other.Now, I know that some
advocates have made the point that this is a false choice.Some advocates of ID have made the
following distinction: if biological complexity cannot evolve, then we
have detected evidence of intelligent design action in biological history;
however, if biological complexity can evolve, that neither proves nor
disproves design, it merely means that we cannot unambiguously detect it.OK, thatıs a very good point, and Iım
glad that some folks are making that point.However, that point is not being communicated to most
audiences.Most audiences are
hearing a very simple message: evolution or design; one or the other.Listen to church members and school
boards and scientists.The message
they have heard is, ³evolution or design, one or the other.²Philosophically, that is a flawed
choice.Religiously, it is a
dangerous message.And I urge
everyone here, no matter where you stand on ID, to make the point that
evolution-or-design is a false choice.

The
reason Iım so passionate about that message is that there is, unavoidably, a religious
dimension to ID.Now, I know that
ID is sometimes presented as if it could be separated from religion.And Iıve already acknowledged that parts
of Intelligent Design can be evaluated on their scientific and
philosophical merits, apart from religious considerations.However, everybody – and I do
mean everybody – knows that ID has religious implications.And advocates of ID themselves
frequently raise theological arguments when they are talking to Christian
audiences.While I havenıt used
any direct quotations, I have briefly paraphrased on your handout some of those
theological arguments under point H.These arguments are worthy of being debated and discussed on their
theological merits.Some of them,
I would strongly oppose.Statement
H5, on the other hand, I agree with.I particularly like statement H6.I happen to disagree with the H6.I do not think that good theology and hermeneutics make ID more
likely to be true than evolutionary creation, and Iıd love to have another 25
minutes to talk about why I think that H6 is false, and make a cumulative case
in favor of evolutionary creation using scientific, philosophical, and
theological arguments.But since I
donıt have the time for that, I will merely point out that I recommend H6
because I like the way it is phrased.Phrased this way, it could be the starting point for a spirited but
friendly debate among Christian scholars.

(H5) It is reasonable to believe that God might have used (scientifically detectable) supernatural
events to create first life and biological complexity.

(H6) Good theology and hermeneutics should lead us to
conclude that ID is more likely to be true than theistic evolution.

Before
I finish, I should point out that opponents of ID also make scientific
and philosophical and religious arguments, and some of their arguments are
strong, while other arguments are flawed.If I had another 25 minutes, I could give you examples of good and bad
arguments for theistic evolution.But that isnıt what I was asked to talk about today.

So
in conclusion: if Intelligent Design is partly scientific, partly
philosophical, and partly religious, how can the debate over ID be conducted most
productively?

To
advocates of ID, I recommend the following:Donıt pretend that ID can be evaluated purely as science
without consideration of religious implications.ID has religious implications, and everyone knows it.If someone asks you, ³Who is the
designer?² donıt try to be coy and say, ³I donıt know² or ³it doesnıt matter.² Instead answer, ³That is a philosophical
and religious question and Iıll be happy to tell you my beliefs and the reasons
for my beliefs; however, can we also discuss the scientific arguments on
their scientific merits?²If
someone tells you that ID isnıt ³scientific,² reply by saying, ³Yes, itıs
partly scientific and partly philosophical.But regardless of how you classify it, are the arguments themselves
sound or unsound?²If you help
your critics separate your scientific and philosophical arguments into
categories with which they are comfortable, you can, I hope, avoid the
unproductive demarcation argument and instead encourage your critics to
confront and evaluate the strengths of your scientific, philosophical, and religious
arguments, each in turn.

To opponents of ID, I recommend the
following:Donıt play the
demarcation game, that is, donıt insist on definitions of science which try wholly
to exclude Intelligent Design.Donıt
insist that ID must make specific empirical predictions in order to be
³scientific.²Understand that in
science, it is OK sometimes to challenge the validity of one scientific
model without immediately proposing an alternative model in detail.It can be scientifically valid and
useful sometimes to argue that some particular event is unexplainable in
terms of known natural laws.When
advocates of ID are making such scientific arguments, donıt try to trap
them or shift the terms of the debate by asking, ³Who is the designer?²Instead: letıs evaluate the scientific
parts of ID on their scientific merits; letıs evaluate the philosophical parts
of ID on their philosophical merits; and letıs evaluate the theological parts
of ID on their theological merits.